Procedure Committee Oral evidence: Procedure under coronavirus restrictions, HC 300 Monday 1 February 2021 Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 1 February 2021. Watch the meeting Members present: Karen Bradley (Chair); Aaron Bell; Kirsty Blackman; Jack Brereton; Bambos Charalambous; Sir Christopher Chope; James Gray; Nigel Mills; Douglas Ross; James Sunderland; Owen Thompson; Liz Twist; Suzanne Webb; Mr William Wragg. Questions 457-514 Witness I: Rt Hon Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, Leader of the House of Commons. Written evidence from witness: – HM Government (CVR 90) Examination of witness Witness: Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP. Chair: I welcome our witness, the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP—my right hon. Friend. Thank you very much for appearing in front of the Committee today—virtually, once again, I am afraid. We will have plenty of questions for you about that issue and others as we go through the course of the day. As you will know, the Committee is not just looking at the way the House is operating under coronavirus. We have started an inquiry into the operation of the territorial system of the United Kingdom and the way in which the four legislatures operate together. I suspect there will be lots of questions about coronavirus, but to ensure that we can cover all those points, we would like to kick off with questions about that inquiry. We will then move on to the sifting Committee—the European Statutory Instruments Committee—and then to questions around coronavirus. We have many Members wishing to ask you questions, and we will kick off with Nigel Mills. Q457 Nigel Mills: Jacob, good afternoon. The Chair has outlined our inquiry on the territoriality of our procedures. Given all the change and all the upheaval, would you agree with this initial statement: our House’s procedures need to reflect and take account of the nuances of all the various aspects of our constitutional settlement? Mr Rees-Mogg: The way the House legislates obviously needs to take account of the devolution settlement. That is absolutely right; hence the Sewel convention, legislative consent motions and the various Standing Orders in relation to devolved issues, or issues that arise because of devolution. Q458 Nigel Mills: I wondered if you were cut off in mid-flow and we were to get more there. Further to that, can I ask you about English Votes for English Laws? I think when we were both elected for the first and second times it was a hugely important issue in our constituencies, if perhaps not in everybody else’s. Obviously, we have had those powers suspended during the pandemic. Do you and the Government see those as an important part of our House procedures and look forward to them being reinstated when the situation allows? Mr Rees-Mogg: I think there are issues around them—they are certainly quite complex. I am not convinced that there is as full an understanding of them as one might hope. Procedures need to be clear, both to Members of Parliament and to the wider electorate, and I am not sure that the EVEL procedures manage that. The other thing to bear in mind is that English Votes for English Laws is perhaps most important in the event that a different party holds the majority across the United Kingdom as a whole, as opposed to the party that holds the majority in England. It is quite difficult at the moment to see the circumstance where we would lose a vote on an EVEL basis that we would win on a UK basis. Q459 Nigel Mills: As a matter of principle, it would not be realistic to expect an incoming Government to decide, “Well, we haven’t got a majority in England; let’s reinstate the EVEL processes.” They need to be there as a permanent feature or not at all, don’t they? Mr Rees-Mogg: They need to be well embedded to work, which is why their complexity may be something of a drawback, because I do not think they are well understood as they currently operate. Q460 Nigel Mills: Does that suggest that the Government want to reform the EVEL procedures? In a response to our inquiry, the Government said that the objective was for all parts of the UK to feel better connected to Government, politics and politicians. Is that what that alludes to? Mr Rees-Mogg: I think it is right that we want people in all parts of the United Kingdom to feel well connected to our processes, and there is therefore a virtue in our processes being relatively simple. Q461 Nigel Mills: I still do not quite understand what you are planning for EVEL, then. Are you planning to bring it back as it was, not to bring it back at all, or to work on something different? Mr Rees-Mogg: This brings us on to the issue of the reinstatement of procedures at the end of the pandemic. I think the understanding is that procedures will come back and that there will be an opportunity for reform in future, if people think that suitable, for all sorts of procedures. The suspension was agreed on a unanimous basis, on the understanding that the procedures would be brought back, rather than things being changed by happenstance. Q462 Nigel Mills: That seems fair. In the longer run, do you think that the Government will come back with some reforms to EVEL law, or is that a matter to be considered on another day? Mr Rees-Mogg: I think the Government would be very interested in any recommendations the Procedure Committee has to make on how EVEL might work better. You make a very good point about the need for Parliament to work for all parts of the United Kingdom, but I think it is recognised that EVEL is a complex system. That is why it has had to be suspended: the complexities in applying it. Chair: Thank you very much. As I said, we will go on to questions about the procedures under coronavirus and how we return to whatever normality might look like at that point, but continuing on the territorial issues, I will bring in Owen Thompson on the Sewel convention. Q463 Owen Thompson: Thank you, Chair, and thank you Lord President. The Government have now passed three Acts in two years without the consent of all or some of the devolved Governments. The Committee has received written evidence stating that that exposes the limitations of the Sewel convention and undermines the trust between devolved Governments and the UK Government. Do you agree that those are the limitations of the Sewel convention? Mr Rees-Mogg: The Sewel convention is an important one in the relationship between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. It is worth bearing in mind that even in the current legislative session, 42 legislative consent motions have been granted, so by and large, the Sewel convention is working well. There have inevitably been some issues that have been of heightened political controversy and where the UK Government has needed to act without legislative consent motions, but it has correctly asked for them on all occasions. As has been pointed out by the courts, the Sewel convention is a political convention, and this therefore becomes part of the political discussion. I think the Sewel convention is actually working pretty well. Q464 Owen Thompson: From that, I suppose I would ask: what would be your view of the Institute for Government report, which suggests that the Sewel convention should be put into Standing Orders? Mr Rees-Mogg: I think the idea that it is a political convention, rather than a constitutional convention, is important. Our Standing Orders are in some ways a major part of our uncodified, but none the less written, constitution, so I would favour it remaining the type of convention that it is. I would say that the Government acts without a legislative consent motion only after very, very careful thought. It is not something the Government does lightly. Q465 Owen Thompson: Are there parallels that we could draw between this and the EVEL processes that we just touched on, regarding whether it is political or not? Mr Rees-Mogg: Well, the EVEL processes are written into Standing Orders in relation to England, but of course England does not have a separate devolved power and there is very little argument in favour of that. The EVEL conventions are there—I suppose you could say in parallel to legislative consent motions—to ensure that a majority of English MPs are supportive of English-only regulations, but I think legislative consent motions are in a way rather more straightforward. Q466 Owen Thompson: Finally from me for now, I am wondering whether Standing Orders should be used to change, or even to structure, the constitutional settlement. Mr Rees-Mogg: That is a very broad question about whether or not we should have a codified constitution. I am a strong advocate of the uncodified constitution that we currently have, but Vernon Bogdanor, who is perhaps the most respected constitutionalist in the country, takes a different view on this. If the Procedure Committee were to do an inquiry into it, I would recommend summoning Vernon as a witness. Q467 James Sunderland: Hi, Leader. Thank you for coming to speak to us this afternoon. I have two questions for you. The first one is about the intergovernmental relations review. In its evidence to the Committee, the Government recently said that: “An essential and core part of the Government’s ambitions for future intergovernmental working is enhanced transparency to support parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.” With transparency in mind, could you please tell us when you will publish the findings of the review? Mr Rees-Mogg: I don’t have a date for when the findings of the review will be published.